Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. Unknown Defendant

Wirelesswerx IP LLC, a known patent assertion entity (PAE) and part of the DynaIP network, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Subaru of America, Inc. Wirelesswerx IP LLC was formed in Texas in May 2022 and acquired a portfolio of location-tracking patents from Wirelesswerx International, Inc., a Panama-based entity. Subaru of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, and the complaint asserts it maintains a regular and established place of business in Frisco, Texas.

The litigation centers on US Patent 7,323,982, titled "Method and System to Control Movable Entities." This patent generally describes a method and system to wirelessly control an entity equipped with a transponder by defining geographical zones and executing configurable operations based on the entity's position relative to these zones, often utilizing GPS technology for tracking and geofencing. The accused products or services by Subaru are broadly referred to as "Accused Products" that allegedly infringe the patent through their commercial manufacture, use, importation, offer for sale, and sale in the United States. This technology is relevant to connected vehicles, GPS tracking, and telematics systems.

The case, 2:25-cv-00225, was filed on February 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is presiding, with Referring Judge Roy S Payne also assigned. This court has historically been a favored venue for patent plaintiffs due to its plaintiff-friendly rules and expedited schedules. The case has been consolidated for pretrial issues with lead case 2:25-cv-00182. Wirelesswerx IP LLC is a prolific NPE, having asserted its location-tracking patent portfolio against over 40 defendants, including major technology and automotive companies, as part of a broader "geofencing campaign." Notably, the '982 patent is currently undergoing ex parte reexamination by the USPTO, with "substantial new questions of patentability" being found, and a prior case asserting this same patent against Verizon in the Western District of Texas was dismissed with prejudice in October 2025.

Wirelesswerx IP LLC v. AT&T, Inc.: Patent Infringement Litigation and Parallel Reexamination

Wirelesswerx IP LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T, Inc. (doing business as FirstNet) in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,323,982. The case, numbered 2:25-cv-00225, was filed on February 14, 2025. [cite: 2 (from previous turn)]

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2025-02-14): Wirelesswerx IP LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against AT&T, Inc., d/b/a FirstNet, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7,323,982. [cite: 2 (from previous turn)]
• Patent Expiration (2025-12-29): U.S. Patent 7,323,982 expired on December 29, 2025. [cite: 2 (from previous turn)] This significantly impacts the potential remedies, as injunctive relief is generally unavailable for expired patents, limiting the case to past damages.
• Parallel Ex Parte Reexamination (Control No. 90015402) Filed (2025-07-22): Unified Patents LLC filed an ex parte reexamination request against U.S. Patent 7,323,982 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [cite: 5 (from previous turn), 8 (from previous turn)] The patent, directed to "Method and system to control movable entities" and involving geofencing techniques, is also being asserted in other litigations by Wirelesswerx IP. [cite: 2 (from previous turn)]
• Non-Final Office Action in Reexamination (2026-03-05): The USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action in the ex parte reexamination proceeding for U.S. Patent 7,323,982, indicating that the reexamination is ongoing. [cite: 5 (from previous turn)]

As of the current date (May 29, 2026), specific details regarding AT&T's answer or counterclaims, substantial pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending the reexamination), or any claim construction (Markman) orders for the district court case (2:25-cv-00225) are not publicly detailed in the provided search results. Given the relatively recent filing date (early 2025) and the patent's expiration in late 2025, the case is likely either in an early discovery phase, in settlement discussions, or potentially stayed or dismissed if a resolution has been reached or is pending the outcome of the reexamination. The ex parte reexamination proceeding is still active at the USPTO. [cite: 5 (from previous turn)]

Plaintiff Wirelesswerx IP LLC is represented by:

• Name: William P. Ramey III
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Ramey LLP, Houston, Texas
• Experience Note: William Ramey III is the founding partner of Ramey LLP, focusing on obtaining, enforcing, and licensing intellectual property across various technologies, and has extensive experience as first-chair in patent litigation. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation from 2014-2024. However, Ramey and his firm have faced significant sanctions in multiple federal courts, totaling millions of dollars, for issues including unauthorized practice of law, failure to conduct adequate pre-suit investigations, and bad faith litigation. These sanctions have included requirements to self-report to bar associations and an injunction from filing future patent cases in the Western District of Texas without advance judicial permission.

The initial lawsuit, 2:25-cv-00225, originally filed against an "Unknown Defendant," later identified Subaru of America, Inc., as the defendant. This case has since been consolidated for all pretrial issues with Lead Case No. 2:25-cv-00182 in the Eastern District of Texas, where Wirelesswerx IP LLC is also a plaintiff, for example, against AT&T, Inc.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Key findings so far. Let me verify the individual attorneys, their firms, and the venue motion.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Subaru of America, Inc.

Important framing note: The case-metadata caption ("Unknown Defendant") is outdated, and the previously generated "Key legal developments" section contains a case-identity error that I flag immediately below. Every attorney named here comes from actual docket entries (complaint, notices of appearance, and motion filings) in 2:25-cv-00225 and its lead case 2:25-cv-00182.

---

⚠️ Contradictions to flag before the counsel list

1. Wrong plaintiff/defendant pairing in the prior section. The previously generated section titles 2:25-cv-00225 as "WirelessWerx IP LLC v. AT&T, Inc." and describes AT&T's case as 2:25-cv-00225. That is incorrect. Per the complaint caption and the Justia/PACER dockets, 2:25-cv-00225 is WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Subaru of America, Inc.; the AT&T/FirstNet case is 2:25-cv-00182, which serves as the lead consolidated case. (Justia 2:25-cv-00225; Justia 2:25-cv-00182)
2. Wrong filing date. The prior section says 2:25-cv-00225 was filed 2025-02-14. The Subaru complaint was filed 2025-02-21; 2025-02-14 is the AT&T case's filing date.
3. "Status: Ongoing" appears stale. The lead-case docket minute entry for the 5/28/2025 scheduling conference in Lead 2:25-cv-00182 / Member 2:25-cv-00225 records that Plaintiff's counsel made no appearance and "the Court ordered both cases dismissed." The Subaru member case was then terminated/closed on 6/30/2025 (case flags CLOSED, CONSOL). (Justia 00225 docket; GaeFlex docket mirror; PatSnap AT&T case summary reproducing the minute entry)
4. Prior section's "current date (May 29, 2026)" conflicts with today's date of 2026-10-12. Also, its speculation that the case is "in early discovery... or in settlement discussions" is superseded — the record shows a court-ordered dismissal.
5. Reexamination filing party conflict. The prior section attributes the ex parte reexam of the '982 patent to Unified Patents LLC (Control No. 90015402, filed 2025-07-22), while the Patsnap patent record for the same patent lists a reexam Control No. 90016016 filed by Voxx International Corporation. These may be two separate requests, or one source is wrong. I could not resolve this with the sources retrieved, so treat the reexam filer as unverified.

---

Subaru's counsel of record (2:25-cv-00225 / carried into Lead 2:25-cv-00182)

All three appeared attorneys are from Findlay Craft, P.C., a Tyler, Texas IP boutique. Subaru's answer deadline was extended by agreement to 5/22/2025, and defense-side filings were made under Findlay Craft's name. (Justia 00225)

Not verified / no appearance found:

• In-house counsel for Subaru of America, Inc. — no corporate/in-house attorney notice of appearance appears on the retrieved docket.
• DLA Piper US LLP (Chicago) — a Patsnap counsel-of-record entry lists "DLA Piper US LLP (Chicago)" alongside Findlay Craft for the Subaru defense. I could not corroborate a DLA Piper appearance on the docket from the sources retrieved, and no DLA Piper attorney name is tied to any Subaru filing. Treat the DLA Piper listing as unconfirmed / likely a data-source artifact until a PACER notice of appearance is found. (Patsnap)
• Pro hac vice admissions — none appear in the retrieved docket text for the Subaru case.

Do not confuse with co-defendant's counsel

The lead case (2:25-cv-00182) lists four "defendant attorneys": Deron R. Dacus (The Dacus Firm, P.C.), plus Findlay, Steadman, and Hene. Dacus represents AT&T/FirstNet, not Subaru — don't attribute his appearances to Subaru. (Justia 00182; UniCourt 00182)

Practical caveats

• The docket sources retrieved are mirrors of PACER last pulled in mid-2025; the Justia page for 00225 states it was "last retrieved on April 7, 2025" and does not include the 5/5 and 5/26 notices of appearance that appear in the GaeFlex/UniCourt captures. A fresh PACER pull would be needed to confirm whether any additional counsel appeared or withdrew after 5/26/2025.
• Because the case was terminated (6/30/2025), any counsel list should be labeled "counsel of record at time of dismissal." The consolidation order expressly directed that, going forward, counsel should file notices of appearance only in the lead case, so Subaru's continuing representation (if any post-dismissal) would be reflected on the 2:25-cv-00182 docket.